I must admit I'm glad I no longer have to do this on a daily basis, because if RA1210 was imposed upon me I'd raise a blanket MF765 (Unsatisfactory Feature Report) on it. Pending an answer (which would never arrive, as no-one in the MAA would know what to do) I'd ignore it and use regulations which remain consistent and make sense. I'd like to see the MAA arguing against that. Duty Holders must read RA1210 and ask "How on earth........." You all have my sympathy.
I ask myself what is better - this "new" MAA system or what went before.
Pre-MAA you were told not to implement perfectly good regs if time or cost was in peril. The choice was simple, you did as you were told or you met your legal obligation. Most accidents we discuss here can be traced to the former. Tornado/Patriot and MoK are obvious examples. DE&S still adhere to this policy/practice, which I suggest is what the MAA should be concentrating on. The proof, if any were needed, is contained in the audit reports the MAA commissioned.
Today, you have an extra choice. The "new" MAA regs, which contradict both the DE&S policy and "old" regs, despite many of these "old" regs still being mandated (mainly because the MAA don't actually know they exist).
Some have been cancelled without replacement - for example, it is patently obvious the author(s) of RA1210 have never heard of Def Stan 05-125/2, yet it is THE bible and adherence to it avoids or provides the solution to 99% of all problems you will ever encounter. Think about it. A mandated Air/Land/Sea Standard has been cancelled by the Air domain without replacement. What arrogance and ignorance. Does the MAA realise that it is still invoked in, for example, the Army's flagship Infantry programme?
Look at what worked in the past, not what didn't work. You'll learn more.